Stopping a supermarket from erecting scafolding on my land

System

lovelyhead wrote: »

Exactly. I thought that would be obvious, but it seems not.

Nothing is obvious in the legal world, it can become very technical very quickly - and the people that argue these technicalities don't come cheap

lovelyhead wrote: »

These are good questions. It is these sorts of questions that are leading me to seek legal advice. If there is any chance of any financial risk to my family then I will just walk away.

Legal advice will be expensive and offer little reward, you aren't going to stop the development at this stage as you don't have enough leverage - all you are doing is throwing a spanner in the works which is likely to be worked around or the wall left to deteriorate until it can be justified that re-rendering it is critical maintenance, neither of which is beneficial to you

lovelyhead wrote: »

Those are not either or statements. Both have to be met.

Do you know that the current render has not failed and is required to be re-done?
my guess is that they would be painting it rather than re-rendering a whole wall if that was an option - so they may already have identified that the render has failed and needs replaced

lovelyhead

the_r_sole wrote: »

Nothing is obvious in the legal world, it can become very technical very quickly - and the people that argue these technicalities don't come cheap


Legal advice will be expensive and offer little reward, you aren't going to stop the development at this stage as you don't have enough leverage - all you are doing is throwing a spanner in the works which is likely to be worked around or the wall left to deteriorate until it can be justified that re-rendering it is critical maintenance, neither of which is beneficial to you


Do you know that the current render has not failed and is required to be re-done?
my guess is that they would be painting it rather than re-rendering a whole wall if that was an option - so they may already have identified that the render has failed and needs replaced

These are the sort of questions I will be asking a lawyer. If there is any financial risk to my family it is a non starter.

System

lovelyhead wrote: »

These are the sort of questions I will be asking a lawyer. If there is any financial risk to my family it is a non starter.

you have already contacted a lawyer? - your next stage is appoint one to do the research and put together a case, that's your financial risk right there.

lovelyhead

the_r_sole wrote: »

you have already contacted a lawyer? - your next stage is appoint one to do the research and put together a case, that's your financial risk right there.

I will be having a meeting with a lawyer to discuss the process, the costs and any risks. A couple of thousand is no big hardship for us to lose.

Dan-Dan

£2000 just to delay the inevitable?

Or best case , cause them a very very minor headache

More money than sense

lovelyhead

Dan-Dan wrote: »

£2000 just to delay the inevitable?

Or best case , cause them a very very minor headache

More money than sense

It wouldn't cost £2000 to gain enough information to make a decision whether to proceed or not. I have been quoted £180 for an hour of a lawyers time. I wouldn't proceed if there is more than a £2000 risk.

phoenix_w

lovelyhead wrote: »

I have been quoted £180 for an hour of a lawyers time.

Spend £180 on something worthwhile like some toys for your child and just let it go.

You're letting the hate consume you and even by your acknowledgement you want to spend your heard earned moolah on putting a tiny obstruction in the entire process - something which other posters have told you is likely to be inconsequential.

paddy's_mum

Not all grave risk is financial and it is the other aspects of all this that you really should be thinking very deeply about.

Why would you be seeking out conflict and hostility when you don't need to?

What does your heavily pregnant partner think about your stance, assuming that she is a joint owner alongside you?

lovelyhead

phoenix_w wrote: »

Spend £180 on something worthwhile like some toys for your child and just let it go.

You're letting the hate consume you and even by your acknowledgement you want to spend your heard earned moolah on putting a tiny obstruction in the entire process - something which other posters have told you is likely to be inconsequential.

paddy's_mum wrote: »

Not all grave risk is financial and it is the other aspects of all this that you really should be thinking very deeply about.

Why would you be seeking out conflict and hostility when you don't need to?

What does your heavily pregnant partner think about your stance, assuming that she is a joint owner alongside you?

A lot of people here that seem happy to give up at the first hurdle.

I don't hate the supermarket. It doesn't consume my every thought. All I want to do is to protect my interests. We have paid lots of money to be owners of this land. That gives us rights. If we can reasonably stop others from infringing on our rights then it would be stupid not to.

My wife agrees that it would not hurt to seek legal advice over the matter.

A right bunch of pushovers on this website.

Dan-Dan

I am no pushover ,but as a homeowner with a family and a finite budget, i tend to choose my battles wisely

Maybe you learn this as you grow up